Monthly Archives: August 2013

Peter Pun says the government’s revised plans for new town development in the northeastern New Territories have largely heeded public concerns, but local job creation remains a worry

In its revised plan for the northeastern New Territories, the government has considered, and res-ponded to, the public’s concerns expressed in the third public engagement. The substantial increase in the population capacities for Kwu Tung North and Fanling North – by 30 per cent to 174,900 – has answered positively the voices of the majority in the community and will certainly help to ease, partly at least, the acute housing shortage.

For residents who will be affected by the development in the two areas, rehousing will be made easier as sites have been reserved in both Kwu Tung North and Fanling North. Special ex-gratia compensation packages, comparable to those under the express rail link and the Liangtang/Heung Yuen Wai boundary control point projects, are also included in the plan. These two measures should render the proposed development more readily acceptable.
It should be a priority to do whatever possible to ensure a reasonable ratio of local employment

There is evidence of more assistance to affected farmers. While the government estimates that about 28 hectares of active agricultural land will be affected, it has retained 37 hectares of land in Long Valley for a nature park and 58 hectares in Kwu Tung North and Fanling North for agricultural rehabilitation and re-siting. In addition, there is the option of another 34 hectares, suitable for farming, in Kwu Tung South. These options seem to provide sufficient sites for farmers to choose in the vicinity to suit their purpose.

The government has yet to spell out how the affected farmers will be compensated for their hardship, including possible economic loss due to the removal; compensation packages must be reasonable.

In allowing landowners who meet specific criteria to apply to modify the lease for private development, the government has stressed that a time limit will be set for completion. This will ensure that the purpose of private-sector participation, to achieve efficient provision of housing and other facilities, will be achieved.

While the government has increased the plot ratios in the new development areas to accommodate a significantly larger population, the extra housing will all be subsidised units (mainly public rental housing, with some Home Ownership Scheme apartments). The number of private units has in fact been marginally reduced.

In other words, those not eligible for subsidised housing won’t benefit from the availability of a more densely populated living environment.

The government has not accorded the same priority to this “sandwich class”, yet they are already paying ridiculously high rents or prices for their homes and are receiving little assistance from the government in other ways, either. Something has to be done for them.

Another concern is the future employment situation in these two new developments. Logically, with the rise in population, employment opportunities should have been increased accordingly. Yet, while the total planned population has been increased by 30 per cent, employment opportunities will be reduced by 9 per cent, from 41,400 to 37,700.

According to the public engagement report, the population-to-job ratio is planned to be 4.6:1, or about 22 per cent. Although this is similar to the ratios in Fanling and Sheung Shui, it is certainly not satisfactory because it means fewer than one quarter of the population will be able to find employment in the district. And, given the types of jobs planned for the two areas, the percentage may actually be lower.

In the plan, the only sizeable areas for economic activities are a 14-hectare “commercial, research and development zone” along Fanling Highway in Kwu Tung North and another eight hectares reserved for research and development in the northwest part of the area. Given that subsidised housing units have been increased to 60 per cent, what percentage of the residents will actually be equipped for these jobs, especially in research and development, remains to be seen.

Undoubtedly, the facilitation of research and development business in the new development areas is to be welcomed as it will help develop high-value-added, knowledge-intensive new industries for Hong Kong. But it should also be a priority to do whatever possible to ensure a reasonable ratio of local employment.

Of course, there’s no way everyone can be employed in the area where they live – or for job opportunities to be guaranteed. The concept of “balanced development” doesn’t work in Hong Kong and, therefore, cross-district employment is unavoidable. Yet not only will high transport costs take up a good portion of commuting workers’ wages; the hours of daily travel will also deprive them of valuable family time, a bitter social problem that has been experienced in the past in Tuen Mun, for example. And this will affect lower income groups the most.

The government has emphasised that 80 per cent of the residents in the new development areas will live within 500 metres of public transport nodes, so it appears to be aware of the problem. Let’s hope the government will study ways to help create more labour-intensive and low-skilled industries in these new development areas to cater for the employment needs of the grass roots, too.

Dr Peter K.S. Pun, honorary chairman of SD Advocates, a non-party-affiliated, private think tank, is a former director of the Planning Department

Winston Mok says to stop the exodus of talented Chinese, the government must do more to make the pursuit of the ‘China dream’ possible – starting with reforms in education, the private sector and housing

Under the “China dream” envisioned by Xi Jinping , every Chinese is urged to pursue his or her dream, thus contributing to nation-building and leading to the resurgence of China. In a recent government-sponsored survey among Guangdong residents, for the most part, their “dream” is understandably quite simple: a good job and a decent home. Yet, these basic aspirations are becoming out of reach for the younger generation.

For the seven million young people graduating from university this year, most will struggle to find an acceptable job, let alone clinch a dream one. A modest home in Beijing or Shanghai, starting at US$500,000, is also just a distant dream.

Most of China’s youth are more materialistic than idealistic. For example, it’s commonly said that a man will need to own a downtown apartment before he has any chance of marrying a Shanghai girl. Meanwhile, graduates would choose, above all others, a job in the public sector, with its decent pay, good benefits and high job security. The draw is personal gain, rather than any noble calling to serve the public.
While admonishing people to take the initiative, the government must also do its part

That was not the case for earlier generations, many of whom had idealistic dreams for a better China. In the more than half a century leading to the founding of the People’s Republic, there were periods of high idealism. At the turn of the 20th century, China’s youth threw their lives at reform and revolution. In the 1919 May Fourth Movement, they embraced science and democracy as the foundations to strengthen China.

At the founding of the People’s Republic, many elite gave up better economic prospects overseas to participate in building a new China. Most subsequently languished and their talent was wasted in circumstances too painful to detail.

China now has arguably more talent than ever. Beyond the new graduates, many are attending, and teaching at, the best universities around the world. However, many are staying overseas. An increasing number of China’s elites are emigrating. China’s best and brightest are pursuing their dreams elsewhere.

So how can China provide an environment for its best talent to pursue their dreams? While the issues are complex, it could start tackling problems in three areas.

First, education reform. Admission to China’s elite universities, the ticket to a good career, is very unequal. Universities in Beijing give strong preferences to local residents in a system of regional quotas. As a start, there should be uniform admission standards nationwide for nationally funded universities, blind to candidates’ place of origin.

While some secondary schools in Shanghai and Beijing are world class, their rural counterparts are vastly inferior. Rural education should be significantly upgraded. Graduates could be given strong economic incentives to teach in rural areas, such as hardship allowances and credits for subsequent applications for public- sector jobs.

Further, if China wants to develop world-class universities, their governance must be free from bureaucratic control.

Second, productive private-sector growth. At a recent summit organised by the government think thank China Centre for International Economic Exchanges, it was observed that a new engine of growth is needed, as the old formula of investment-driven growth is running out of steam.

The private sector is an engine for job creation. However, its growth has been impeded by unfavourable access to financing compared to the state sector. In the longer term, significant financial sector reforms are needed to facilitate a more efficient allocation of capital away from wasteful local government projects to productive private enterprises that can create jobs.

Third, affordable social housing. Housing is so expensive in the major cities that significant government intervention is needed not only for the poor but also for recent graduates. Shenzhen has been a pioneer in developing social housing for skilled professionals. Other cities could consider a similar scheme for young professionals, although measures are needed to prevent abuse. For example, 10 to 20 per cent of the 36 million flats of affordable housing to be built by 2015 could be set aside for professionals whose skills are needed locally.

For cities to draw talent and create jobs, housing must be accessible not only to the affluent, but also to talented and ambitious youth.

While admonishing people to take the initiative, the government must also do its part to make the “China dream” possible. Job creation and affordable homes are the main pillars for the “China dream”.

Therefore, the government should look to shape economic growth and deliver social justice. There is a long way to go to achieve the “China dream”. But as Lao Tzu wrote: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.”

Winston Mok is a private investor, a former private equity investor and McKinsey consultant. An MIT alum, he studied under three Nobel laureates in economics

Alice Wu says our obsession with turnout numbers at the July 1 rally misses the point of civic participation – a good in itself

Let’s face it: Hong Kong is a highly strung society. We work crazy hours and are constantly stressed out. Sure, competition, efficiency and productivity are good qualities to have. But while Hong Kong’s characteristic way of rushing through life has somehow become an integral part of our identity, living life in a pressure-cooker takes its toll.

Health-wise, our hyper-stressed lives are leading to more insomnia, high blood pressure and a host of complicated mental health and psychosomatic disorders.

Fortunately, we are increasingly aware of our frantic lifestyle. In addition to recognising the sources of our stress – like long working hours, job security, the rich-poor gap and the high cost of living – we have learned to pause and rethink our priorities.

And what we’ve learned in our private lives we can also apply to our public life.

Since we were awakened from our political apathy – most notably by the July 1 march of 2003 – we’ve been more politically involved as a community. The idea of a more publicly engaged society should be a good thing – at the very least, it nurtures a public spirit that complements a political system moving towards democratisation.

So why do we seem more politically agitated and stressed out? Our strengthened public spirit ethos has brought people together but it has also polarised society.

It is true that this city’s administrators have disappointed and, at times, infuriated the community. But we must also look at how other political actors have contributed to creating a stress-inducing, exasperating political landscape.

Today, a week after July 1, is a good time to pause and think. What has the annual July 1 march – a tradition I believe to be a healthy way for members of the community to let off steam, air their grievances and, most importantly, be heard – become?

It has somehow become a numbers game, which robs the march of its purpose and meaning. The growing discrepancy between the turnout figures from organisers, the police’s and academics should be ringing alarm bells, because when the focus is placed solely on numbers, or the manipulation of counting heads, instead of the marchers’ voices, something has gone terribly askew.

When we draw an arbitrary line, which, in effect, says that only “X” number of feet can legitimise sentiments, grievances or demands, we do ourselves a disservice. As a result, we lose, bit by bit, our power and right to be heard.

Chasing numbers is not what the July 1 march is about. Just as we have begun to come to terms with the fact that happiness does not necessarily derive from material riches, we must now pause and think about this city’s politics.

No counting exercise can determine the quality of our public spirit. And when we lose sight of what is truly important – a public sphere that allows for different voices to be heard and different opinions to be aired, so that people can be empowered by the process – we’re heading down a dangerous path of political disillusionment and collective cynicism.

Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA